1.

Briefly explain the interconnection of the following thesis form/questions:

a) Why and how can ethos change mores?

Ethos is the freedom to freely judge norms and beliefs, for instance, ethical
values that change mores. Ethos changes mores in the way that people nowadays have
several values and principles that govern their lives in a timely and relevant manner—
mores changes over some time on its dynamic evolution. People nowadays were in the
modern era wherein their lives were affected with norms in a contemporary living and
technology-driven society as to its proximity on the models, people change their mores
in accordance to their free will of judging and based on how they view the community of
man based on their ethical perspective.

b) Why and how mores are empty without ethos?

Mores tends to become empty without ethos, for the matter that mores are
observed on ethical values without concerning the significant primary essentials of
ethos. This becomes empty because a person or a man is not aware of their ethos in
making such mores of themselves. Completely following mores without ethos will turn an
individual into a blind follower that acts without freedom or a sense of self.

c) What is the relation between the two? Can they be interchangeable?

The ethos and mores go hand-in-hand and emphasize proximity which is

interchangeable. Why? It is because mores and ethos are both vital in human ethical
concepts. They are both significant components of ethics prevailing human ethical
norms and beliefs. Ethos and mores are almost always interchangeable, for both are
always being interactively reflected in a man’s choices and actions and how they behave
in a particular scenario.

2. What is the essential difference between naturalistic ethics and metaphysical ethics?

Naturalistic ethics were based on true norms and derived from human beliefs. At
the same time, metaphysical ethics were based on the circumstances of human actions.
The essential differences can be seen in how humans adapt and respond to a certain
scenario. Naturalistic ethics believe that we can translate moral terms into physical,
sociological, or psychological hypotheses that can subsequently be tested. Metaphysical
ethics accept that moral statements can be determined as true or false but contend they
arise from a human sensibility that we all share, enabling us to determine right from
wrong.
3. Can descriptive ethics remain value-neutral? Identify other limitations of descriptive ethics.

Descriptive ethics is almost always value-neutral, but there are situations in

which it can’t retain its value-neutral property because judgments can influence its
essence. Its limitations are that facts and information can be deformed based on how
people recognize its significance. Feelings, mood, tone, timing, and an individual’s
prejudice can affect its value. Also, since descriptive ethics is being used as a tool for
looking through the perspective of a moral subject, it cannot be treated as prescription,
guidance, and a ground basis for supporting the reasonableness of certain moral
conduct.

4. How do you think normative ethics and prescriptive or applied ethics overlap? Can meta-
ethics provide a shared context of these intersecting boundaries, and how?

Suppose normative ethics, prescriptive and applied ethics overlap. In that case,
they tend to become an interdisciplinary form of ethics that can lead to ethical diversity
and provide broader opportunity and choice and perspective to people out of their ethical
ethos and mores from freedom of actions and ethical rules that will govern their entire
life. Normative ethics deals with the question of right and wrong. Prescriptive ethics act
as moral statements that function as imperatives that apply to everyone in particular
situations. Applied Ethics uses ethical theories in a particular field. Meta-ethics
prominently combines those components.

Hospital scenarios such as euthanizing a person, treating of extremely

dangerous individual, and other dilemmas are good examples of these intertwining
connections between the three, where the question of right and wrong, the
imperativeness of a particular action (killing is bad, and treating is good), and the
specialization and application of ethical theories in the medical field coexist and intersect
with each other.